Free Notice to Take Deposition - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1 :04-cv-01285-GIVIS Document 70 Filed O9/14/2005 Page 1 of 4
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
ENZON PHARMACEUTICALS, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v. Civil Action No. 04-1285 (GMS)
PHOENIX PHARMACOLOGICS, INC.,
Defendant.
NOTICE OF DEPOSITION OF DEFENDANT
PHOENIX PHARMACOLOGICS, INC. PURSUANT TO
FED. R. CIV. P. RULE 30(b)g6) {Nos. 13-29)
TO: Joseph Lucci, Esq. Richard D. Kirk, Esq.
Woodcock Washburn, LLP The Bayard Finn
One Liberty Place, 46th Floor 222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
Philadelphia, PA 19103 Wilmington, DE 19801
PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 30(b)(6), Plaintiff Enzon
Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Enzon") will take the deposition upon oral examination of Defendant
Phoenix Pharmacologics, Inc. ("Phoenix"), commencing on September 29, 2005, at 9:30 am.,
and continuing from day to day until completed, at the offices of Kenyon & Kenyon, One
Broadway, New York, New York, 10004, or such other time and location as agreed upon by
counsel. The deposition will be taken before a Notary Public or other officer duly authorized to
administer oaths, and will be recorded by stenographic and/or videotape means.
Your are invited to attend and cross—examine.
The definitions and instructions set forth in Enzon’s interrogatories and document
requests shall apply to this notice of deposition.
DB0l:l85l288.1 p 0635411001

Case 1:04-cv-O1285—G|\/IS Document 70 Filed O9/14/2005 Page 2 of 4
Phoenix shall designate one or more knowledgeable persons to testify on its behalf as to
the following category: `
13. The factual basis for Phoenix’s contention that Count I of Enzon’s Complaint is
barred under the doctrines of laches and/or equitable estoppel (Answer to Amended Complaint
First Defense).
14. The factual basis for Phoenix’s contention that Count H of Enzon’s Complaint is
barred under the doctrines of laches and/or equitable estoppel (Answer to Amended Complaint
Second Defense).
15. The factual basis for Phoenix’s contention that Count 111 of Enzon’s Complaint is
barred under the doctrines of waiver, laches and! or equitable estoppel (Answer to Amended
Complaint Third Defense).
16. The factual basis for contention that Count H1 of Enzon’s Complaint is barred by
application of a statute of limitations (Answer to Amended Complaint Fourth Defense).
17. The factual basis for Phoenix’s contention that Count lll of Enzon’s Complaint A
fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (Answer to Amended Complaint Fifth
Defense).
18. Phoenix’s attempts to license and/or licensing of PEG—ADl.
19. Phoenix’s policy, plan, or strategy for marketing and/or commercializing PEG-
ADI, including but not limited to launch plans, marketing plans, news releases, press releases, C
journal publications, competitive comparisons, product positioning, demonstrations, forecasts,
budgets, market surveys, and market projections.
20. All agreements to research, develop, distribute, license, sell, or otherwise convey
rights in PEG-ADI to which Phoenix is a party.
21. All attempts by Phoenix’s to enter into agreements to research, develop,
distribute, license, sell, or otherwise conveys rights in PEG-ADI.
22. Any communications between Phoenix’s and any investors, venture capitalists,
licensees, or potential partners related to PEG-ADI from 1996 to the present.
23. Phoenix’s competitors or anticipated competitors with respect to PEG-ADI.
24. Phoenix’s projected sales volume (both in dollars and units) for PEG—ADI.
25. Phoenix’s pricing policies, plans, or strategies for PEG-ADI.
26. Phoenix’s anticipated or projected customer base for PEG-ADI.
- 2 - ‘
DBOl:l85l288.l 0635411001

Case 1:04-cv-O1285—G|\/IS Document 70 Filed O9/14/2005 Page 3 of 4
27. Any actual or planned public or private security offering and/or issuance by
Phoenix related to PEG-ADI.
28. Phoenix’s actual and projected costs and expenditures relating to the
development, manufacture, sale, and marketing of PEG-ADI, including but not limited to capital
expenditures and operating expenses, and how Phoenix allocates costs.
29. Phoenix’s actual or projected profits or losses derived from the development,
manufacture, distribution, sale, use, or manufacture of PEG—ADI.
September 14, 2005 YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT
& TAYL R, LLP
By: V4
Jo y W. Ingersoll (No.1088)
John W. Shaw (No. 3362)
Karen E. Keller (No. 4489) A
The Brandywine Building, 17th Floor
1000 West St.,
P.O. Box 391
Wilmington, DE 19801-0391
(302) 571-6600
Attorneys for .
Enzon Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Plaintiff
OF COUNSEL:
Richard L. DeLucia
Charles A. Weiss
Michael A. Siem
KENYON & KENYON
One Broadway
New York, NY 10004
(212) 425-7200
- 3 - . `
DB0l:l85l288.l 053541_10gi

Case 1:04-cv-O1285—G|\/IS Document 70 Filed O9/14/2005 Page 4 of 4
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Karen E. Keller, Esquire, hereby certify that on September 14, 2005, I caused to be J
electronically filed a true and correct copy of the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court
using CM/ECF, which will send notification that such filing is available for viewing and
downloading to the following counsel of record:
Richard D. Kirk, Esquire
THE BAYARD FIRM
222 Delaware Avenue, Suite 900
Wilmington, DE 19801
I further certify that on September 14, 2005, I caused a copy of the foregoing document
to be served by hand delivery on the above-listed counsel of record and on the following in the
manner indicated:
BY FEDERAL EXPRESS
Joseph Lucci, Esquire
WOODCOCK WASHBURN, LLP 4
One Liberty Place, 46th Floor
Philadelphia, PA 19103
YOUNG CONAWAY STARGATT & TAYLOR, LLP
Josy W .Ingersoll (No. 1088)
John W. Shaw (No. 3362)
Karen E. Keller (No. 4489)
The Brandywine Building
1000 West Street, 17th Floor
Wilmington, Delaware 19801
(302) 571-6600
[email protected]
Attarrzeysfar Plaim‘w’Erzz0n Pharmaceuticals, [nc.
DB0l:l798064.l 063541.100l